|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Hillary’s FirewallPosted on Oct 25, 2007MANCHESTER, N.H.—Quietly but systematically, Hillary Clinton is building a firewall in New Hampshire. She can afford to lose the Iowa caucuses as long as she can win here. She can’t afford to lose both states. As a result, say Democrats with long experience in state politics, Clinton has been doing everything “the New Hampshire way.” She has carefully cultivated strong personal ties that go back to her husband’s 1992 campaign and has built an organization with deep local roots. Although a victory by Barack Obama in Iowa could still propel him to a triumph here, Clinton is setting herself up to withstand an Obama surge by using New Hampshire to become, if necessary, the second Comeback Kid. The latest poll of likely Democratic primary voters, released on Thursday by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, found Clinton with a commanding 42.6 percent. Obama had 21.5 percent and John Edwards, 13.9 percent. Clinton’s advantage reflects the difficulties Obama has had in turning the enthusiasm he created in the early days of his campaign into enduring support. “Barack seems flat,” said Arnie Arnesen, a former Democratic candidate for governor who is now a broadcaster and commentator. “The magic we experienced in December hasn’t been sustained.” Obama’s rock star quality may actually be getting in his way. Gray Chynoweth, an attorney who is president of the state’s Young Democrats—and is, like Arnesen, neutral in the contest—said he admires Obama and was “excited to be part of his first visit to the state.” Advertisement Obama’s charisma causes him other problems. Arnesen said that while Clinton’s message “is very much about the voters,” Obama’s is “very much about himself” and his personal capacity to create change. Cinde Warmington, who chairs the Democratic Party in the town of Gilford and supports Chris Dodd, said she likes Obama but was struck by a speech given by Michelle Obama declaring that her husband “really is special.” This positive attribute, Warmington said, can also “come across as a sense of detachment,” or even what some here perceive as an above-the-fray superiority. Chynoweth said Obama tries hard to fight this perception. “He always says that ‘I’m just a vehicle for this message,’” Chynoweth said. “But in a weird way, when he’s saying it’s not about him, that makes people think it’s still about him. It’s a tough box to be in.” Jim Demers, who co-chairs Obama’s campaign here, believes Obama will perform far better in the New Hampshire primary than current polling suggests because of his appeal to independent voters—they are called “undeclared” here—who can vote in either party’s contest. And he notes that Obama has campaigned intensively in small groups, particularly at the house parties for which New Hampshire is famous. But Demers points to a fascinating dynamic which—although he doesn’t say so—may also be helping Clinton. Obama’s candidacy, he argues, “sucked the energy out of the rest of the pack,” hurting Edwards and others who might have emerged as major challengers to Clinton. Thus, instead of a campaign organized in opposition to Clinton, the fascination with Obama has, up to now, made her less of a target. And Ray Buckley, the Democratic state chair who is being so studiously neutral that he says he’ll write in Jimmy Carter’s name on primary day, argued that the strong reception Obama received here last December pushed Clinton “to get in much earlier” and organize the state more intensively. Several Democrats also said Clinton’s claim that she can deal with the Republican “attack machine” rings truer to an angry party than Obama’s call for an end to partisan polarization—the very appeal Demers hopes will eventually draw independents to Obama. The paradox for Obama is that catching up may require him to make Clinton—and her views and electability—more of an issue than he is. It may not come naturally, but “No More Mr. Nice Guy” may have to become his campaign anthem. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group  TAGS:
|
Real American Boy: How Our Byzantine Immigration System and Failed Economy May Have Made a Terrorist
 . '/' . substr('9780307387899',-6,3) . '/' . '9780307387899' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Hotrod54235, October 27, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
#109802 by WR Curley
Report thisSimply brilliant observation! Folks, The FIX is IN. It will be Hillary and Ghouliani, two of the most despicable people in America. And you thought you deserved better.
By TC, October 27, 2007 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
Thomas Billis is right on. Much of the system is a joke, a criminal joke. Wealth rules. The Senate especially is utterly anti-democracy: Wyoming with a fraction of the population, let alone diversity, has as much Senate voting power as New York or California or Texas. That’s not Democracy. Besides, it’s much easier for big money to dominate small states, and thus the country.
And then there’s Clinton - both of them but Hillary this time, a Neo-Damnedlican, and Old Rethugnocrat:
“By now Hillary Clinton has made clear her intention to run for President of the United States as a Neo-Dumblican, a.k.a. an Old Repugnocrat. And why not? After all, Clinton served on the board of directors of Wal-mart, and currently receives the financial support of Wal-mart executives. She interned with Republican office holders, and as a lawyer advocated against the progressive low-income community organization ACORN in the interest of big money. Her health care proposals are very pleasing to the rapacious pharmaceutical industry. And she evidently intends to wage war on as much of the world as possible for the rest of her career. A Neo-Dumblican indeed, this Old Repugnocrat.” ...
Continued: http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/neo-damnedlican-old-rethugnocrat/
Report thisBy WR Curley, October 27, 2007 at 7:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Good, Dennis, smart and succinct.
I’ve read Dionne’s bio. Harvard, Oxford, the whole high establishment magilla, and here he’s self-cast as a castrato in the chorus. Typing out witless, insipid little Right-Think PR pieces calculated to get him a morning one-off with Scott Simon.
Kind of a waste of toney tutelage.
As Ann Coulter might put it, grow a pair, EJ. Less puff, more pastry, you ever expect to amount to anything useful.
WR Curley
Report thisElizabeth, Colorado
By DennisD, October 26, 2007 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
EJ, since you and the rest of the media lemmings have anointed Hillarious our next “Contractor and Chief” you’ve tried to limit the discussion about any other candidate with original ideas to solve this country’s problems. This is a disservice to the voters but I’m sure you’ll be rewarded with some hack job in her administration should the Diebold election slot machines roll five diamonds in November 08. It really is about your “next” big possible job isn’t it.
Don’t bet on it though, few if any will actually pull that lever when the time comes no matter what the contrived polls say. I can only hope that at some point in this country’s history, actual qualifications rather than name recognition will be the reason people are elected to office.
By the way, I’d really like to know what qualifies her to run a country other than being an ex-Presidents wife and carpetbagging Senator from NY(a gift, manipulated by her husband who was on his way out as President). I realize that the bar for the office of President has been lowered to a large degree by it’s current occupant but there’s no need to repeat a horrendous mistake.
Try to keep in mind you’re not voting for the new host of the “Today Show” or “American Idol” but President of the United States. I don’t want another corporate hand puppet in office, do you?
Report thisBy WR Curley, October 26, 2007 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no objective truth in the media assertion, election cycle after election cycle, that the Iowa caucuses mean damn all. Turn-out is pathetic; it is organized and dominated by intense partisans whipped along by out-of-state professional pols peeling bills from pork-fat bankrolls. We all know that the terms “undecided” and “independant” best characterize the largest block of the Iowa population this early in the process, and that this block has no place on the sofa in these media-hyped, living room straw polls.
So with New Hampshire, ‘though with a far better claim to democratic authenticity. But New Hampshire’s population is ideosycratic and politically inbred in the extreme - proudly so - and can scarce be said to reflect the wildly disparate interests of the US population as a whole. No Cuban emigres, no Creole blacks, no metrosexuals, no Hollywood liberals, no Seattle net-bar mochafrappaccinoists, no Iowa independants, even. Plenty of cranky libertarians, is what it’s got.
The reason the media ascribes such doomsday import to these truly tiny events is that they want it over early. On the surface, this seems counter-productive…the media waxes fat on ad revenue, and they charge premium rates to the campaigns during primaries.
But be it remembered, the media are the mouthpiece of a particular cabal of corporate power brokers. These folks are most interested in protecting their own interests. They test the possible contenders early, looking for a measure of malleability. The two (never more) most easily shaped to their purpose become the “front-runners”. Hillary and Rudy, folks, both of them dutifully a-froth to slaughter the enemies of Zion - barring melt-down (hymie cracks, some regrettable ad-lid sympathetic to Islam) - are this season’s anointed. Take it to the bank. The media can comfortably recoup ad revenue during the main event.
The Senator and the Mayor are both attractive enough to garner the votes of the independants, and of the rabid idealogues who will need to suck it up and check down for the lesser evil.
And they both have potentially devasting back-stories for “investigative journalists” to truck out and garnish ad naseum if they should step out of line. Maybe not as easily worked as W’s cokesnorting, Veetnam AWOL, but good enough to the purpose. Poor Hill, she’ll find that Jewgirl Monica’s bodily fluids all over her peach-color pants suit, she dare just once lament “shock and awe”. Whatever happened to Vince Foster? Whatever happened to health care? And Rudy, Christ, the broads, the wives, the public funding for baby-killing, the gun bans, the perv priests on staff? Gimme a break.
Get it down to two you can control, and then start shaving the deals leaner and meaner.
These candidates want to be President more that they want anything in this world or the next. They’d send their souls to hell in a limo, could they just once stride out to “Hail to the Chief”.
Rudy and Hill, folks, and never an exit from the quagmire, and never a break for the sand-nigger, and never an unkind remark for the remorseless soldiers of Zion. And oil at what, $150, $200?
Take it now or lose it all,
WR Curley
Report thisElizabeth, Colorado
By Sharon Ash, October 26, 2007 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama’s problem is that while he is a great speech maker and he can inspire with his speeches, when it came to the debates and in interviews, what he had to say, in his own words, not from a prepared speech, has been simply less than inspiring. When you give these really great speeches, people expect you to be filled with more of where that came from, and for me, it just has not been there. Do I like the heck out of him? You bet. Do I want him for president? Not yet, maybe down the road. Do I want him actively involved in my government? Absolutely! I support Hillary over Obama because she is moderate, as compared to Kucinich on the left or Romney on the right, understands our government and will require no training wheels for the job, and she speaks from a source of genuine knowledge. Is she an ideal candidate for president? No, but the ideal candidate is as illusive as the unicorn. She is a highly qualified candidate and after what we have been through with the Bush Administration, and the mess that is going to be inherited by the next president and their administration, nothing less than highly qualified will do.
Report thisBy thomas billis, October 26, 2007 at 1:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What a great system two states with a population of 6 get all this ink and all this power.Do we have our early primaries in Texas,California or New York no we pick states with no minorities and more farm animals than people.I hope next year we can have primaries in Montana and Wyoming so the candidates can spend one day campaigning and meet everybody in the state.
Report this